Jump to content

The Big Scottish Independence Debate


Laurence

Recommended Posts

Chums

In Canada:

We do NOT have free elderly care unless they are found to be without a family and destitute.

NOR free medical plan (I pay the family amount of $125.50 monthly ).However I should say that my son's heart operation which the surgeon told me would have cost $500 in the U.S.A. was virtually free.!!!!!

NOR free water (paid within the municipal taxes),

NOR free prescriptions. The Province has what they call Pharmacare as an add-on to the B.C Medical Planand which is supposed to help out the elderly who are not well off--PROVIDED that the more expensive prescriptions (like the toothpaste tube of back cream to stop the terrible itching that nothing else would cure which cost me $100 which is about 60 pounds)is not eligible of course and you have to spend $1,200 first before you qualify. I.e. it's virtually useless unless you just need aspirin.

NOR free higher education which has just gone up in price again.

And we don't qualify for free winter coal etc.

Sounds as if you are not too badly off really.

By the way our news said that the "no's" are now 6 points ahead--is that true?

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of it this way

 

they agree to a CU and ask the EU / NATO to see if we would get in or not straight away and to agree to be the best possible partners whatever way we choose and they would lose by a large margin!

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that too much of the YES campaign is based on this sort of wish list stuff.  There seems to be a real reluctance to debate the facts.

 

The facts here are that it would not be in the interests of the rUK to have a currency union with an Independent Scotland so why on earth would they agree to something they don't want, to make it more likely that something else they don't want is more likely to happen?

 

Regarding NATO.  In the event of a "YES" vote, I would imagine the rUK would want Scotland to be a member but not on the terms the SNP would appear to want.  Salmond wants rid of Trident but wants to shelter under NATO's nuclear umbrella.  I think rUK may say that's OK provided either Trident stays where it is and Scotland continues to pay its fair share, or Scotland pays for its re-location.  The Green's position of no to Trident and not applying for NATO membership is a far more honorable position.

 

Regarding the EU, I think the Unionist parties have made it quite clear that they would support an independent Scotland being in the EU but the issues are whether Scotland would automatically become a member or whether it would have to apply, and what the terms of membership would be. 

 

The irony of the SNP's eagerness to be part of the EU is that the call for independence is so that Scotland can have control of its own affairs.  However, it is the extent of EU legislation impacting on the ability of the sovereign British Parliament to have control over it's own affairs which is the reason the right wing in the UK are calling for a referendum on the UK's membership.

 

As it is, all these major issues remain unresolved and we are asked to go to the polls next week to make the most important decision any of us have ever made in the absence of key information required to make a responsible decision.  I have a lot of sympathy for the concept of independence but I cannot vote for it when key information is denied to us and when the facts we do know suggest that independence is likely to have serious financial implications for our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If we aren't scared to vote yes then London will be begging us for currency union.

Our neighbours in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and potentially the UK all use their own currencies, we should do the same. Nevermind what the SNP says, its not about what they want in independence you're voting on, the tartan petrodollar would do just fine without having to prop up banks that are apparently too big to fail.

 

You make a good point about the fact that neighbouring independent countries have their own currency, but of course, the real issue here is why are the SNP not proposing that Scotland has a currency of its own and why are they so hell bent on insisting that there will be a currency union even though all the Unionist parties have said that will not happen?  It is worth bearing in mind that the Unionist parties could simply have said that they are not commenting because they will not be negotiating until such time as Scotland has voted for independence.  The fact that they have been up front about this is simply because it is not up for negotiation.  The UK does not have a currency union with other countries and there is absolutely no reason why they should make an exception in Scotland's case - in fact, there is every reason why they should not.

 

The reason the SNP are desperate for a currency union is because they know their economic plans are fundamentally flawed.  The strategy for paying for all these plans for a land of milk and honey the SNP has bribed the voters with is firstly to borrow massively, secondly to rely on a level of oil related tax revenue which assumes top end estimates of productivity and oil prices, and thirdly to attract high levels of net immigration of workers into a re-energised economy who in turn will contribute large tax revenues.  It won't work and the SNP know it.  Had they confidence in their plan they would grasp at the opportunity for Scotland to have it's own currency and would promote the idea as a tangible sign of a proud and truly independent nation.

 

Instead of this confident assertiveness of the strength of an independent Scotland's economy, Salmond lamely says that the unionist parties are bluffing!  It is utterly pathetic.  The SNP are reliant on a currency union so that the Bank of England can bail Scotland out when the oil revenues turn out to be well short of the SNP's hopes, when all the hoped for new jobs don't materialise and when Scotland needs to start paying back the massive sums it intends to borrow.  There is of course one way of ensuring a currency union and one way only.  That is by maintaining the political union and voting "N0".

 

 

Although strangely there was no currency union with Eire when we i.e the UK, bailed out or 'supported' them financially

Personally I'm sitting on the fence on this one,  which is OK since I don't have a vote, I would prefer Scotland to stay part of the Union, but can understand why there is a lot of resentment above the border for the Westminster elite, I can see a viable independent Scotland but the birth pangs might be painful (but necessity is the mother of invention, and we know Scotland is good at that), I think some of the anti-independence businesses are bluffing a bit with the cry's of doom, as I think 'Brand Scotland' could be quite a powerful thing, some of the social issues will be more challenging.

 

I shall watch the vote with interest!

 

 

With respect Eagle, whilst your contribution is reasoned and balanced, this is  about a great deal more than resentment about a Westminster elite this is about a sense of nationhood. People in Manchester, Yeovil and even London dislike the the Westminster elite as much as some Scots. Some Scots enthusiastically embrace and become part of the Westminster elite. This absolutely transcends those sort of political difference and that's why people with no previous interest in politics or history of voting are engaging like never before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yngwye, that is what Labour and Tory Westminster Governments have been doing for years!  This is our chance to do things different we just have to believe in ourselves.

 

I agree, there's been some shocking mismanagement of the UK's finances and in recent years we've finally had to face up to that.  I agree also that this could beour chance to do things different, but the plan on the table is just to repeat the same mistakes but to an even worse extent: spend spend spend, borrow borrow borrow, and then either hope that it all comes good in the long run, or just leave it for the next generation to sort out.

 

An independent Scotland that was run sensibly and lived within its means would be far more appealing to me personally, but wouldn't be able to offer all the spending promises that the White Paper relies on to tempt voters.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yngwye, that is what Labour and Tory Westminster Governments have been doing for years!  This is our chance to do things different we just have to believe in ourselves.

 

An independent Scotland that was run sensibly and lived within its means would be far more appealing to me personally, but wouldn't be able to offer all the spending promises that the White Paper relies on to tempt voters.

 

 

 

And that is proof that the only thing stopping you and many other voting yes is the fiancal uncertinity and playing on that is the uk's only hope of a no vote!

 

 

 

This is a letter sent to rbs staff today

BxQPEqDIYAEJAX4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current staggering debt of the U K run up under successive Westminster Governments has been highlighted here and, whatever portion Scotland has to absorb after a possible yes vote, the daunting fact remains that it will still mean that it will take years of prudent financial handling to get it close to being paid off. The unpalatable fact is that if you can't afford it then don't go.

 

The problem with most Governments is that they now don't see borrowing as a last resort but as an entrenched modus-operandi for daily business and going into debt as a regrettable, but necessary, way of running the country...because it suits then to do this! After all, the taxpayer  will pay for it, not those who run the debt up. Meaning that THEY don't assume the responsibility for the run-up and  are only accountable every 4-5 years or so when there will be all kinds of hand-wringing and myriad of excuses why it could not be helped for all kinds of reasons. Meantime the politicians live very well indeed-- at the taxpayer's expense.

 

That being so, they engage in all kinds of extravagant spending that is simply not affordable in the sense that the debt increases daily from the accumulation of interest which has  to be paid at least monthly to avoid  the Bank's wrath descending on them and this then obliges them to forget about setting-up a strict capital debt repayment programme and the implementation of a strict spending control initiate within previously agreed limits.

 

Before long, they start to ignore the fact that they are in way over their heads and restricting  spending will not be a politically correct way of running the country because the "taxpayers demand it. " etc.

 

Here, in Canada, for the last several years we have been very lucky in a sense that we have had a Finance Minister named Jim Flaherty who did see the writing on the wall and knew that it would be a very smart thing to do to balance the books by the time the next election came around in 2015 which would greatly enhance the Conservatives 're-election prospects. Unfortunately he died suddenly this year and his common sense will be sadly missed.  And where we go from here is anyone's guess.

But I think, finally, politicians are getting the message that living way beyond our means collectively and individually is not a good way to continue.

You can only rob Peter to pay Paul only so many times. And then old Grim, the financial Reaper comes calling.

 

If this referendum does not act as a severe wake-up call in the U. K. to all taxpayers to keep their politicos feet to the fire then it will be a sad day because then you will not make the progress you deserve and it will be "same old, same old" with a vengeance..

Good luck with that one  and on the 18th.

 

 S.P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was following hte debate earlier and it appears the BBC has yet again edited the coverage lessen the blow on the No camp.  Widespread reporting of BBC pollsters asking kids to say they're currently 'Don't Know' to balance the results.

 

Can anyone defend this from a press conference this afternoon?

 



Edited by clacher_holiday2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC have been nothing short of shocking in their coverage of the matter, any veneer of impartiality just about abandoned now.

 

The UKIP and Orange Order rallying to the defence of the Union over the next couple of days must be worth at least a two percent swing in favour of independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clacher_holiday2 asks "can anyone defend this from a press conference" yesterday afternoon?  Well, as I'm someone in the "No" camp, it's not for me to defend the First Minister but I would have thought that it showed him up to be highly manipulative, dishonest and untrustworthy.

 

Salmond starts his lengthy response by saying he will respond to Robinson's questions first and then put a reverse question back to Robinson which, he says, he is sure Robinson will be pleased to answer.  Despite making a serious allegation against the BBC in the course of his answer, he then repeatedly refuses to allow Robinson back in despite his earlier promise to do so.

 

Salmond's insecurity on this issue is reflected by his casual dismissal of the "technicality" of the registration of headquarters issue and his apparent outrage of the leaking of apparently market sensitive details.  Clearly if this "technicality" was worthy of such casual dismissal then news of it would have no impact on the markets at all.  As it is, impact was pretty limited simply because everyone knew this was RBS's position in any case.  It really is a non-issue.

 

Robinson asked about the impact of the change and received a patronising lecture on corporation tax for his troubles.  Salmond also read out a statement from RBS saying there were no plans to move jobs.  But, this is not an election and it is not just about the next 5 years.  This is a referendum which will shape Scotland's future for decades to come.  As always, Salmond chose to ignore that.  The relevance of the Banks' decisions (Lloyds as well) is that registering in London means that the Boards of those 2 massive financial organisations see it is in their interests not to be regarded as Scottish banks but as British Banks.  You have to ask yourself why they would take that line.  Of course the RBS has no plans to physically relocate anything - yet. After all, relocating HQ would be massively expensive and would be unlikely to be cost effective at this time.  What you can be sure of is that if there is a "YES" vote, as a British registered bank RBS will increasingly focus development south of the border and that may well mean moving the HQ in due course.  The RBS announcement is not a disaster for Scotland but however you look at it, it is not good news.

 

It is also interesting that Salmond should get so pompously indignant about the alleged leak of information that we all knew about in any case.  Clearly it was a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the issues that really matter.  In relation to banking for instance, Salmond still refuses to say what his preferred currency option B will be, given that everyone except himself seems to know he can't have his option A.  His antics were dutifully reported by the BBC whilst they largely ignored the lastest report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which clearly demonstrates that the NHS in Scotland is far safer within the union. 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366

The report blows a lot of the "YES" campaign's arguments out of the water and the Guardian reports that Health Secretary Alex Neil does not dispute the figures.

 

There is no doubting that Salmond is a very clever and astute politician.  We have just a few days left for the people to finally clock that he also highly untrustworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not watched many of the debates but watched the one from Glasgow tonight and the most disappointing thing was that Better Together could only muster up George Galloway to back up Ruth Davidson :ohmy:

Yep, thank god or `allah` that GG is not with YES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clacher_holiday2 asks "can anyone defend this from a press conference" yesterday afternoon?  Well, as I'm someone in the "No" camp, it's not for me to defend the First Minister but I would have thought that it showed him up to be highly manipulative, dishonest and untrustworthy.

 

Salmond starts his lengthy response by saying he will respond to Robinson's questions first and then put a reverse question back to Robinson which, he says, he is sure Robinson will be pleased to answer.  Despite making a serious allegation against the BBC in the course of his answer, he then repeatedly refuses to allow Robinson back in despite his earlier promise to do so.

 

Salmond's insecurity on this issue is reflected by his casual dismissal of the "technicality" of the registration of headquarters issue and his apparent outrage of the leaking of apparently market sensitive details.  Clearly if this "technicality" was worthy of such casual dismissal then news of it would have no impact on the markets at all.  As it is, impact was pretty limited simply because everyone knew this was RBS's position in any case.  It really is a non-issue.

 

Robinson asked about the impact of the change and received a patronising lecture on corporation tax for his troubles.  Salmond also read out a statement from RBS saying there were no plans to move jobs.  But, this is not an election and it is not just about the next 5 years.  This is a referendum which will shape Scotland's future for decades to come.  As always, Salmond chose to ignore that.  The relevance of the Banks' decisions (Lloyds as well) is that registering in London means that the Boards of those 2 massive financial organisations see it is in their interests not to be regarded as Scottish banks but as British Banks.  You have to ask yourself why they would take that line.  Of course the RBS has no plans to physically relocate anything - yet. After all, relocating HQ would be massively expensive and would be unlikely to be cost effective at this time.  What you can be sure of is that if there is a "YES" vote, as a British registered bank RBS will increasingly focus development south of the border and that may well mean moving the HQ in due course.  The RBS announcement is not a disaster for Scotland but however you look at it, it is not good news.

 

It is also interesting that Salmond should get so pompously indignant about the alleged leak of information that we all knew about in any case.  Clearly it was a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the issues that really matter.  In relation to banking for instance, Salmond still refuses to say what his preferred currency option B will be, given that everyone except himself seems to know he can't have his option A.  His antics were dutifully reported by the BBC whilst they largely ignored the lastest report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which clearly demonstrates that the NHS in Scotland is far safer within the union. 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366

The report blows a lot of the "YES" campaign's arguments out of the water and the Guardian reports that Health Secretary Alex Neil does not dispute the figures.

 

There is no doubting that Salmond is a very clever and astute politician.  We have just a few days left for the people to finally clock that he also highly untrustworthy.

 

It wasnt the first video I was looking to be defended, it was the BBC bias.

 

Did you watch them both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest poll has Yes on 49 and no on 51. 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...oll?CMP=twt_gu

 

Great news for Yes, 16 point swing since the last poll.

 

It's going to happen Yessers, just keep the faith and pay no heed to the desperate unionists on here, the BBC, or in the papers. Their union is dead.

 

We have the power in our hands--let's keep it and use it to create a better Scotland.  :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest poll has Yes on 49 and no on 51. 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...oll?CMP=twt_gu

 

Great news for Yes, 16 point swing since the last poll.

 

It's going to happen Yessers, just keep the faith and pay no heed to the desperate unionists on here, the BBC, or in the papers. Their union is dead.

 

We have the power in our hands--let's keep it and use it to create a better Scotland.  :smile:

 

Alas, while without doubt independence is the right thing and would lead to prosperity and a more socially inclusive nation, the scaremongering will succeed and we will wake up a week today with the status quo.

 

However, Scottish independence is inevitable and the Unionists will not be able to resist the tide forever.

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Clacher_holiday2 asks "can anyone defend this from a press conference" yesterday afternoon?  Well, as I'm someone in the "No" camp, it's not for me to defend the First Minister but I would have thought that it showed him up to be highly manipulative, dishonest and untrustworthy.

 

Salmond starts his lengthy response by saying he will respond to Robinson's questions first and then put a reverse question back to Robinson which, he says, he is sure Robinson will be pleased to answer.  Despite making a serious allegation against the BBC in the course of his answer, he then repeatedly refuses to allow Robinson back in despite his earlier promise to do so.

 

Salmond's insecurity on this issue is reflected by his casual dismissal of the "technicality" of the registration of headquarters issue and his apparent outrage of the leaking of apparently market sensitive details.  Clearly if this "technicality" was worthy of such casual dismissal then news of it would have no impact on the markets at all.  As it is, impact was pretty limited simply because everyone knew this was RBS's position in any case.  It really is a non-issue.

 

Robinson asked about the impact of the change and received a patronising lecture on corporation tax for his troubles.  Salmond also read out a statement from RBS saying there were no plans to move jobs.  But, this is not an election and it is not just about the next 5 years.  This is a referendum which will shape Scotland's future for decades to come.  As always, Salmond chose to ignore that.  The relevance of the Banks' decisions (Lloyds as well) is that registering in London means that the Boards of those 2 massive financial organisations see it is in their interests not to be regarded as Scottish banks but as British Banks.  You have to ask yourself why they would take that line.  Of course the RBS has no plans to physically relocate anything - yet. After all, relocating HQ would be massively expensive and would be unlikely to be cost effective at this time.  What you can be sure of is that if there is a "YES" vote, as a British registered bank RBS will increasingly focus development south of the border and that may well mean moving the HQ in due course.  The RBS announcement is not a disaster for Scotland but however you look at it, it is not good news.

 

It is also interesting that Salmond should get so pompously indignant about the alleged leak of information that we all knew about in any case.  Clearly it was a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the issues that really matter.  In relation to banking for instance, Salmond still refuses to say what his preferred currency option B will be, given that everyone except himself seems to know he can't have his option A.  His antics were dutifully reported by the BBC whilst they largely ignored the latest report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which clearly demonstrates that the NHS in Scotland is far safer within the union. 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366

The report blows a lot of the "YES" campaign's arguments out of the water and the Guardian reports that Health Secretary Alex Neil does not dispute the figures.

 

There is no doubting that Salmond is a very clever and astute politician.  We have just a few days left for the people to finally clock that he also highly untrustworthy.

 

It wasn't the first video I was looking to be defended, it was the BBC bias.

 

Did you watch them both?

 

Yes, I did watch them both but unless the second one is more that the 23 seconds I'm getting from the link, I'm really not sure what your point is.

 

The first video is a lengthy piece which, correct me if I'm wrong, appears to come from a live press conference and was therefore broadcast without any possible editorial bias.  If it wasn't live then clearly Salmond's interaction with Robinson was unedited. 

 

The second video is a brief news report.  Clearly news reports have to be very selective about what they include and depending on the time slot allowed may or not be able to include clips from the politicians.  What you have posted was a very brief clip in which he factually reported on there being an international press conference.  He factually reported the fact that his question on trust was not answered and factually reported that Salmond had criticised some media reporting.  It was all very down beat and innocuous.

 

What else might Robinson have said?  Well, for a start, he could quite reasonably have said that Salmond had implicated the BBC in the alleged leak but had reneged on his promise to ask Robinson to respond.  He could, and in my view should have picked up on the fact that if, as Salmond implies, the move of RBS registration to London is nothing more than a technicality, why was he making such a big play on the gravity of leaking this "market sensitive" information.  That was the newsworthy bit from the exchange and Robinson let Salmond of the hook.  There was nothing else Salmond said that was worth reporting.

 

It seems to me that the BBC is bending over backward not to be accused of bias by the YES campaign and as a result has lost objectivity and journalistic integrity as a result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those complaining of BBC bias against the YES campaign should have a look at this report from yesterday.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29162234

 

This appears to have slipped under the radar somewhat and I had to use the search function to find it.  It is not a "non-issue" like Salmond's RBS leak nonsense but something which should be the focus of political debate today.  As Johann Lamont said "The SNP lies about our NHS have been the most shameful piece of political campaigning I have ever seen. They have deliberately misled the Scottish public, and preyed on the fears of the most vulnerable people in our communities to bully them into voting for separation.

"This expert, impartial report has exposed that what Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Neil and the rest of the nationalist campaign are saying about the NHS is completely untrue."

 

The BBC report outlines the finding and then sandwiches Lamont's comments between those of Alex Neil and a Doctor on the "YES" side.  Both of these individuals are quoted with the usual sound bites, comments which are comprehensively discredited by the IFS report.  It would be perfectly reasonable journalism, indeed good journalism to quote Neil and Dr Wilson and then go on to report that those views are not supported by the report.  Unfortunately the BBC do not have the courage or journalistic integrity to do that.

 

The low profile given to this important independent report and the way the BBC have reported it plays firmly into the hands of the YES campaign and their strategy of diversionary tactics and misinformation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll level with you all - I'm not that INTO politics - and only come on here when there's no football topics to comment on.

And, when I do, It's usually to wind up the previous commenter by taking a contrary stance!

 

I've tended towards the status-quo in general, on here. So, I'm probably a NO at present.

 

But....as a pro-NO, I certainly have to concede that the 'gentleman's agreement' of journalistic neutrality has been abused!

I was at my Mum's last night - and ended up falling out. She is in her 70's (irrelevant?) and a staunchly 'NO'...but she gets the Daily Mail every day and has been conditioned into this non-objective state of mind whereby she believes everything she reads. She literally 'held up' the front page of a paper with a screaming headline and that's when I got annoyed. The garbage the Mail spouts is ridiculous and unfortunately is lapped-up by some folk.

 

Despite currently being for the Union, I know that some of the stuff they're printing is scare-mongering at best and lies at worst. That sort of bollocks pisses me off.

I might vote YES to spite my Mum! (and she will never know)!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy